All the verses show a person receiving faith and then responding by calling for baptism. we always see a conversion prior to the baptism being provided.
This is
FALSE . It is a falsehood that every example of baptism that happens to be recorded in the Bible shows the receiver had FIRST attained the age of X, FIRST wept buckets of tears in repentance, FIRST chose Jesus as their personal Savior and publicly proved that. In fact, it cannot be shown that ANY of those things were the case in all the examples of baptism that happen to be recorded in the Bible. You claim is flatly
FALSE.
This has been shown to you over and over and over and over - for months now. You just don't care. You just keep verbatim parroting - on and on and on - the Anabaptist/Baptist invented spin on this ... and you won't quote Scripture on this because your claim is of course false and you can't find even one verse that states even one aspect of the new invented Baptism dogma of the Anabaptist/Baptist denomination. The Anabaptists/Baptists invented this dogma in 1523 out of thin air NOT because of ANY Scripture (which is why you can't quote any) but because of their radical synergism and their belief that those under the age of X cannot perform the works they need to do in order to be saved.
YOU mandate that all just ignore denominational spin (such as of the Anabaptist/Baptist) and go only by the words of Scripture. Okay. So, stop the perpetual, never-ending, verbatim parroting of the Anabaptist/Baptist spin on this.... which is ALL you've been doing on this topic since you came here....and give the reference for the following Scriptures:
"BUT thou canst NOT baptize any until they attaineth their Xth birthday!"
"BUT thou canst NOT baptize any until they first repenteth buckets of tears in repentance!"
"BUT thou canst NOT baptize any until they first chooseth Jesus as their personal savior and give public proof of such choice!"
"BUT baptism does nothing, accomplishes nothing and is largely a waste of time so Jesus and the Apostles shouldn't have given it so much emphasis!"
When you quote the verses that state what you do, then you'll finally do what you insist all do (but you). But you haven't even ATTEMPTED to do that because as you and all others know, NONE of the denominational stuff you have been parroting constantly is stated in Scripture. I know it. You know it. Everyone knows it. A radical synergist invented it all, out of thin air, in 1523.... NOT because of any verse of the Bible but because it is a necessary extension of the radical synergism of Anabaptist theology.
MennoSota, you have done nothing on this topic since coming to this site 6 months ago except parrot, verbatim, the new unique and invented denominational spin of the Anabaptist/Baptist denomination. YOU - my friend, are the one doing what you condemn and what you demand all disregard. Everyone knows this - but you.
MennoSota, you are the one who keeps insisting that we are mandated to disregard anything not specifically stated in the words found in the Bible.... yet you have not offered ONE SCRIPTURE that states the talking points you have been parroting. Not one. Haven't even attempted to do it. Everyone knows this - but you.
Many of us have TRIED to discuss the topic with you.... but you are SO powerfully locked into the synergistic mindset and SO powerfully locked into the new, invented denominational spin of the Anabaptist/Baptist denomination on this that it's absolutely impossible. And of course it is obvious (and you have admitted) that you often don't read what others post to you.
1. Infant baptism will never be acceptable to radical synergists. Thus you will constantly rant about what babies are unable to do. This new dogma was invented (altogether out of the blue) in the 16th Century by some very radical synergists NOT because of some verse about baptism but because it seemed undeniable to them that babies can't jump through the hoops we must jump through in order to be saved - and from that perspective, they're right..... I wasn't even awake or conscience or breathing when I was baptized, so I have to agree: IF everything is about MY adequately jumping through a bunch of hoops, OBVIOUSLY I could not have done so prior to my baptism. But while the argument focuses on baptism (because that IS the distinctive new invention of Anabaptists/Baptists) that's not really the issue, synergism is.
2. The Norm of Anabaptists/Baptists will NEVER be accepted by others (or even themselves). They hold that what is normative for dogma is NOT the teachings of the Bible (the honest ones agree there is no stated prohibition) but the EXAMPLES found in the Bible. They are focused on one and only one issue: Where in the Bible is any baby baptized? Aren't all the examples of adults who FIRST came to faith, FIRST repented, FIRST consented and requested baptism? In other words, what the Bible TEACHES is irrelevant (they conceded their prohibition is nowhere taught) but what is EXAMPLED or ILLUSTRATED by the few cases of baptism that happen to be recorded in the NT. There are several problems with that, which sadly never get discussed because all focus on baptism rather than the rubric used in this argument.
A)
It's false. And eventually, Anabaptists/Baptists will admit it. Actually, there are examples where we simply can't know what was the age or faith of the receiver. YES - no one can prove these 'househoods' included children or not-yet-believers but that's not the point. The point is it destroys their premise: that every case is of adults who FIRST repented, FIRST chose Jesus, FIRST consented. The whole apologetic is simply false. Some will admit this - finally admitting they are ASSUMING but then rebuke others for ASSUMING the opposite. They whole apologetic is thus declared to be wrong.
B)
They THEMSELVES reject their OWN argument. They declare this point that we can only do what is consistently illustrated as done in the NT by posting on the internet, lol. And perhaps during a worship service where 90% of what they are doing is never once (much less consistently) illustrated as done in the NT. Since they so boldly reject their premise, why should others accept it?
3. The radical individualism of the Anabaptist/Baptist is problematic. In this UBER-individualistic milieu that has infected Christianity since the Enlightenment, the strong embrace of community and family in the Bible has been abandoned by many. Thus the argument, "The faith and actions of parents and the community can have NO relevance! It's Jesus and ME!" In terms of uber, radical individualism, this "rings" with a lot of people - but not with the Bible. I gave just one example: the last of the Ten Plagues of Egypt where the faith and obedience of PARENTS and the community is what literally saved the first-born child; God used the blood and the faith/obeidence of the PARENTS/COMMUNITY to save their child (who evidently didn't believe or do ANYTHING in this regard). I bring up that example - but there are SO many more. But this is a "hard sell" today because of the very, very radical embrace of individualism and the complete abandonment of any sense of community, family, church, chosen people of God. In truth, anti-paedobaptism just "fits" with this "It's Jesus and ME!" mentality SO entrenched in our socieity, as well as the synergism also SO popular today. Thus, your defense of this new invention.
- Josiah
.
